Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2019
Publication Title
Oklahoma Law Review
Abstract
Even when we achieve the ‘holy grail’ of artificial intelligence—machine intelligence that is at least as smart as a human being in every area of thought—there may be classes of decisions for which it is intrinsically important to retain a human in the loop. On the common account of American criminal adjudication, the role of prosecutor seems to include such decisions given the largely unreviewable declination authority, whereas the role of defense counsel would seem fully susceptible of automation. And even for the prosecutor, the benefits of automation might outweigh the intrinsic decision-making loss, given that the ultimate decision—by judge or jury—should remain a human (or at least role-reversible) one. Thus, while many details need to be worked out, we might within decades have a criminal justice system consisting of robo-defense lawyers and robo-prosecutors. And even if we never do, their consideration provides another lens through which to consider these roles and, ultimately, our criminal justice system.
Volume
72
First Page
1
Recommended Citation
Stephen E. Henderson, Should Robots Prosecute And Defend?, 72 Okla. L. Rev. 1 (2019).
Included in
Criminal Procedure Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Robotics Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons